Manjit Bhatia, in his Razak Baginda trial - gossip can't be stopped , describes Dr Jacob George's Mongolian murder leave Najib out of it as ' moralistic Jacob-come-lately or Goody Two-Shoes rave is fanciful, farcical and naive.'

That is debatable. But two things are not; one, George did not rave. He gave his opinion as he always does in measured language; and two, Bhatia got it wrong when he so confidently stated that it's 'contempt of court during the trial - not before and not after it.'

The specific rule he touches on is in fact the sub judice rule which is part of the law relating to contempt. The rule governs what public statements can be made about ongoing legal proceedings before the courts.

Even though, by and large, the rule applies where court proceedings are ongoing, and through all stages of appeal until the matter is completed, it may, however, also apply where court proceedings have not yet been started, but are imminent.

However, the sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the factual content of ongoing judicial proceedings by the media, as long as the report does not usurp the court's role by prejudging the case or its legal issues.